MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4328004061 · doi:10.1017/9781846152399.003

Convocation: Membership and Participation

2004· other· en· W4328004061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterSurrenderNOMINATEVetoPolitical scienceLawAdministration (probate law)Quarter (Canadian coin)Public administrationManagementHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Convocation immediately became a major force in the University’s affairs, continuing to exert the pressure which had been exercised for the previous ten years, with campaigning zeal, by the Graduates’ Committee. But the early ambition of the graduates, which had been, in effect, to make Convocation the governing body of the University, had been severely disappointed. In addition to being authorised to regulate its own business, the significant powers given to the new body were to nominate candidates for up to a quarter of the seats on the Senate: to veto the acceptance of any new Charter or the surrender of the 1858 and any subsequent Charter: and to discuss and declare its opinion on any matter relating to the University. However, the new Charter also provided that ‘Except, as expressly provided, the Convocation shall not be entitled to interfere in, or have any control over, the affairs of the University.’ In addition, some basic services to Convocation, such as registration and the fixing and collection of fees, were handled by and in conjunction with the University’s administration. As many of those who had fought long and hard for the establishment of Convocation were to be prominent in its affairs for another twenty or thirty years, it is understandable that there was for a considerable period an underlying resentment of the relatively weak constitutional powers which the new body had been given. At the same time, the failure to achieve more, initially, probably intensified the efforts of the leaders of Convocation to make as much as they could of such opportunities as were offered to them. In fact, the considerable influence which Convocation did exert was due in part to the persistence with which they put forward demands and ideas about University policies. But perhaps it was due, even more, as we have already seen, to what might be called the infiltration of the Senate by members of Convocation, either through the electoral process, or through the increasing willingness of the Crown to appoint London graduates. The Senate, essentially, was a small, executive group. Convocation, in contrast, was an organisation envisaged as becoming an increasingly large, representative body.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0020.020
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→